Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shii (talk | contribs) at 23:35, 17 November 2004 ([[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hephaestos, Mirv, and Neutrality for Arbitrator

For the Arbitration Committee to play a constructive role in producing an encyclopedia, its members must understand just what is involved in writing a good article on Wikipedia; and its members must understand that there is a difference between serious editors and trolls sabotoging the work of serious editors. Too many of current members of the committee, along with a number of candidates currently running, view disputes from a prism up high from the IRC channel, mailing list, or the conflict resolution pages. They are not the colleagues of the active editors and writers but rather increasingly distant and unsympathetic authorities over us. However, to be an arbitrator as constructive and accessible as, say, Jwrosenzweig, one has to engage with the community not just from the top down but also from the bottom up. This is why I feel compelled to endorse the candidates aside from myself that have toiled the hardest to write quality articles and maintain their quality: Hephaestos, Mirv, and Neutrality. 172 08:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, David Gerard, and Shane King

I have some confidence in the wisdom and neutrality of these users.

Sam [Spade] 11:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements from Mirv

Visible at User:Mirv/Arbitration election. —No-One Jones (m) 17:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, David Gerard, Raul654 and Shane King

From my interactions with these users (and those they have had with others that I had chance to observe) I have seen nothing but good, and I just have this nice feeling inside about them being arbitrators, considering their grasp of policy. This is not to say that I don't think other candidates are great; I just feel these would make the best arbitrators among all the candidates. Ta bu shi da yu, sannse, Neutrality and Mirv were pretty close, though, but I feel I haven't seen enough of them to be sure they'd make good arbitrators. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements

Sign under the name of the candidate or candidates you endorse. Your reasoning is welcome but not required.

  • Support, a hard working and impartial scholar. 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)






Support 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support-- Neutrality's contributions to many discussions show him to be unbiased, wise, and cool as a cucumber. Ashibaka tlk 23:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Support for Reithy cos he'll ban the French and give $10 for each vote. 000 23:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Oppose for the following reasons: See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade (which is only a partia record of Sam's views.) 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)



(Please add names of further candidate/s)